First, Jussi, I will give you that I’m not thrilled with the billboards either. I feel they are a bit hateful. However, considering there are people in the world such as Laura… maybe the billboards are meant to jolt their daily thinking?

Second, I REALLY prefer to utilize words that convey thoughtful thinking, not just spurred from emotion. WOW, it’s hard though & I’m going to go with the FC for Laura. After debate, I determined she does seem to encompass this word, in my views only of course .

Third, As for needing a ROCKY representative.. I see the point, however isn’t that what Laura was hoping for? Someone to lose their cool & begin spewing dogma back?

Lastly… This just helps to reinstate what I feel of Laura Ingraham. She’s full of hate & utilizes the media to share her views. POST racial tensions that recently made her say she’ll FINALLY get out of broadcasting her show. YEAH!

I don’t have a problem with atheists with challenging laws they believe are unconstitutional but ridiculing and provoking believers does not advance the atheist cause.

Yeah, the liberal and freethinking side will never look good as long as we’re represented by soft-looking people like Anna Laurie, Alan Colmes, and the lisping Fred Edwords. The Fox News audience loves the square jaw and bullying tone. Some day we need to send in a Unitarian Democratic version of Rocky Balboa.

As an avowed atheist, the only way I could possibly be as offended would be if I were walking in the mall, looking at a Christmas tree, and some Christian lunatic came up to me, yelled at me, and told me I wasn’t allowed to look at the tree because I’m a sinner, a pagan, a piece of shit, etc etc etc.

No one is offended by Friendly Atheists. What those people did, however, was decidedly mean-spirited and unnecessary.

No i thought Annie looked very natural and respectful in the face of great ignorance and disrespect.And the way she handled the situation was a high example and a great credit to the attitude of atheism.

What really irritates me about this sort of behavior is that Dawkins and Gaylor were *INVITED AS GUESTS* on these programs, actually believing they’d be given a chance to speak when the true intentions of O’Reilly and Ingraham were to just insult, belittle and ridicule them on national television so they and everyone who agrees with them can feel smug and superior to the godless atheists.

Do you think they’re ever going to figure out that when you’re cutting off and shouting down your invited guests, you’re not reporting anymore, you’re attacking? Do they realize they are showing the world what narrow-minded asses they are? Or do they do it on purpose because they think all their viewers are just ignorant sheeple who gleefully eat that crap up? Probably it’s all of the above.

I dunno. I see so many things that make me roll my eyes so much I’m afraid they’ll fall right out and roll away.

Annie Laurie wasn’t at her best but she was good given that every time she opened her mouth, this woman started screaming. Seriously, how do you make yourself heard in that situation? Get into a shouting match? I think it’s way better that Annie Laurie kept her cool and came off as the more rational of the two.

That fucking bitch about the charity thing. I’ll give her one that’ll fuck with her stereotype: my Atheist daughter works for Catholic Charities.

“You almost said it!” – Condescending in that Laura plays it as if Annie Laurie doesn’t actually believe what’s shes saying, and can slip into “honesty” at any moment. Laura’s excited that she almost TRICKED Annie Laurie. Why does tricking someone into saying something have validity?

She used the “trick” to “hide the decline” of Christianity… (sorry, couldn’t resist)

I agree with the above comment that it seems quite useless to send atheist representatives to FOX. But if you ARE going to do so, you have to know who to send, and Annie Laurie Gaylor is NOT the person you want to send to the lion’s den.

I don’t think you can win an argument against an ignorant fool like Inghram anyway, but I’m definitely bothered my many of Annie Laurie’s answers:

1. She dodges the first question, (which was already mentioned above by Tony), and goes straight to talking points.

2. “Are these signs meant to provoke?”
“They’re meant to say something true. That they’re isn’t a God.”

Arrrgh! Ok. For years I’ve tried to fight the stigma that atheists do not claim to KNOW there is no god; that we just don’t believe in claims of the existence of gods. Now, here is a ‘representative’ of atheist beliefs, saying that there is no God, and it’s the truth. I know the FFRF likes to stir up controversy to get some attention. I realize it’s what you have to do these days to get on the news. But please, not at the expense of our rational arguments and reasons for our beliefs.
This is the main reason I don’t support the FFRF. They ride with the whole ‘There is no God’ theme that indeed makes them sound dogmatic.
That sign they put up in Washington embarrasses me as an atheist, and I wish they could stick to more positive, yet direct and controversial ads like the humanist bus ads.

Just my 2 cents.

Greetings from Finland!

Duke